Anti-graft boost a good chance to plug enforcement gaps

THE announcement last week that Singapore is strengthening its anti-corruption stance may have come as a bit of a surprise to some. After all, the republic is relatively free of the scourge of graft - both locals and foreigners know that palm greasing isn't the modus operandi here, particularly in the public sector.

Yet, for all its famed "squeaky clean" image, the reality is, as the Prime Minister said in announcing the moves, the problem of corruption "will never disappear completely". The prosecution last month of four former senior executives of shipbuilder Singapore Technologies Marine for bribery offences is but the latest in a recent string of corruption scandals that came to light.

The moves to tighten anti-graft enforcement will see a review of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA); an increase in the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's (CPIB) manpower; and a new corruption reporting centre being set up. The legislative review is more than overdue: The PCA - Singapore's main anti-corruption law that governs and defines the primary offences of corruption and their punishments as well as outlines the CPIB's powers to fight corruption - was enacted in 1960. While the Act has undergone amendments over the years, today's tech-driven world and globalised business environment is a different universe from that of the 60s - where money-extorting triads and secret societies once wreaked havoc, the potential for corrupt wrongdoing today lies often, among others, in the onslaught of pressure to boost the bottom line, and in complex corporate structures with business activities conducted through a web of subsidiaries, associates, special-purpose vehicles around the world. What hasn't changed, then and now, is a fundamental lack of ethics and integrity in the key players behind a legal breach for pursuit of profit or power. But these days, in many cases, the "rogue" individuals in the middle of the scandal represent a big corporation.